What is the purpose of arguing with another person? — reaching the truth or consensus. NOT winning the argument. NOT bringing the opposite side to your belief system. NOT belittling or ridiculing the other person.
To reach consensus I have to listen carefully. It doesn’t mean that I should tolerate a fool’s lunacy, but if another person has certain rational reasons to believe in what they believe, and if what they say has a point to it, then I must listen.
Yet, very often I observe the following on screen: A journalist has a reasonable guest on the show/podcast. At some point a provocative question is asked, to which the guest answers sincerely. But that answer doesn’t align with the worldview of the journalist. Soon the conversation heats up, and instead of listening to the arguments of the interviewee, the host starts to interupt them very loudly and aggressively, twist their arguments, put words in their mouth, and ridicule them with the manipulative tools of a fourteen-year-old. I used to assume that it all comes from the ignorance and stupidity of the interviewer, but that is only partially true.
Journalists of established news agencies are not foolish. It is just their job to aggressively shut down every view which does not align with the political stance of the media’s stakeholders.